Monday, September 28, 2015

The Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland Eugene Sutton has posted a pastoral letter titled “Are Not These Our Children?”

The question is in reference to the swarms of illegal minors pouring over the border.

No, they are not “our children”.

They most likely “belong” to Mexico.

The phrase “our children” implies that their continued upkeep is our ongoing responsibility.

The only children you are responsible for are those that you procreate
yourself or voluntarily agree to take care of through formalized
arrangements such adoption and foster care.

The Bishop answers, “...the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland will take its marching orders from the Bible.”

This ecclesiastical functionary further clarifies, “who we are as
Christians who base our ethical actions from the Holy Scriptures that
remind us of the sanctity and dignity of every human being.”

If that is the standard that the Episcopal Church intends to rally
around as fundamental Christian doctrine, does it intend to renounce gay
marriage and ordination as well as abortion?

For these issues are much clearer in divine revelation than how the
denomination is deciding to interpret and implement admonitions
regarding the treatment of strangers.

The passage emphasized in the pastoral letter is from Matthew 25 which
says, “I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me
something to drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

There is nothing in that text demanding you turn over your house without question and allow it to be ruined beyond recognition.

It is an observation of fact that the Episcopalians are one of the denominations that revel in ornamentation and finery.

So is the Bishop a bigot and a snob if he does not invite the unmannered
rabble into his cathedral to use the baptismal font as a toilet and
urinal?

There is a proper way of doing things.

It is exactly because these individuals are worthy of dignity as human
beings made in the image of God that they should be expected to abide by
the laws and regulations imposed upon the remainder of the species.

Monday, September 21, 2015

But technically, isn't it the American political left that has more in common with the terrorizing nightriders of yore?

For example, like the Klan, political leftists (not Donald Trump) are
the ones threatening violence and perpetrating acts of such when opinion
is vocalized with which these hoodlums disagree.

Anyone insisting otherwise need only be reminded of the vandalizing
rampages that have erupted in a number of American cities over the
course of the past year or so.

Furthermore, in an age that claims to value tolerance and diversity, how
is it less of an outrage for victims of the Knockout Game to be
rendered unconscious for simply being White in an overwhelming
percentage of these assaults than it was for outrageous acts of violence
to be perpetrated upon innocent victims in an era that might not have
taken such infringements of basic human dignities as seriously as it
should have?

Like the Klan, Colbert and his political allies are the ones demanding
that duly established law be suspended for the purposes of providing a
preferred demographic with an advantage over another.

All that Donald Trump is pretty much calling for is an enforcement of U.S. immigration law as it is already on the books?

What can be more American that equal treatment under the law?

For if Kim Davis can be imprisoned because of the imperative of elected
officials upholding even those laws that they do not believe in, why
isn't a similar punishment imposed upon those as willfully neglecting
this other area of law and public policy?

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Psalm 11:3 says, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the
righteous do?” Without a doubt, the twentieth century ranks among the
deadliest in all of human history and it seems the twenty-first will
likely continue this appalling legacy. This era will also be remembered
as a period of intense philosophical upheaval where the pillars of
culture and belief were shaken and in many cases even shattered. A
number of sophisticated liberals will contend that one cannot establish a
link between these sociological developments because innocents have
been slain in societies assenting to Judeo-Christian assumptions and not
every unbeliever has been an ax-wielding serial killer. Yet it cannot
be denied that in nations where the God of the Bible comes to play a
role of decreasing significance, the value placed upon human life soon
follows such a downhill plunge.

Exodus 20:3-4 reads, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou
shalt not make unto thee any graven image...” The Lord continues in
verses 5 and 6, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve
them: For I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto
their children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate
me; And shewing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me and keep
my commandments.” Thus from the outset, evidence exists that
consequences flow directly from one's attitudinal disposition towards
the Almighty.

Usually, these consequences are thought of in terms of one's eternal
destination. However, the warning that the iniquities of the father
will be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations
dispels the notion of consequences being solely immediate. Rather, it
indicates that ramification are possible within a wider social context.
It therefore becomes evident that acknowledgment of and submission to
the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob plays a fundamental role in
ordering the individual's cultural and relational perspectives.

The requirement to yield to the God of the Bible is not intended to
shore up the fragile esteem of a deity lacking in self-confidence.
Rather, the foremost among the Commandments serves as a protective
boundary designed to shield sinful individuals from falling prey to
their own delusions as well as those of others.

In “The Universe Next Door”, James Sire lists a number of assumptions
regarding the nature of God embraced by Christian theism. These include
the following: God is omniscient, God is sovereign, God is good, and
God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing other than
through the power of His own Word (23-26). These assumptions are
replete with ramifications for humanity's ethical situation. For if God
is the benevolent, all powerful, all knowing creator and sustainer of
the universe, it naturally follows that the plans and intentions
established by His guidelines for man are therefore the best possible
course of action. Obedience to the First Commandment bring the
individual into compliance with the divinely ordained moral order and
allows the individual to prosper the most from it --- if not in this
life, surely in the next. Romans 12:2 says, “And be not conformed to
this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye
may prove what is good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” John
8:32 adds, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free.” Rather than stifling mankind, the First Commandment allows for a
liberation found in no other system of belief or religious thought.

Sadly though, the present age since the Fall in the Garden of Eden has
been marred by sin and its consequences. Instead of complying with the
First Commandment and accepting God's free gift of salvation found
through belief in the work of Christ, man has consistently preferred to
go it alone in a state of rebellion. Romans 1:21-23 says, “For even
though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God....; but they became
futile in their speculations. Professing to be wise, they became
fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in
the form of a corruptible man and of birds and animals and crawling
creatures (NASB).”

It was not enough for man to bid God adieu and be on his way. Man's
religious yearnings ran so deep that something had to fill the vacancy
left by an evicted God. Throughout the twentieth and now into the
twenty-first century, man has grown increasingly less-flustered about
blatantly occupying without having to hide behind golden calves or
Olympians sculpted from marble the throne once reserved for God Almighty
alone.

Even though belief systems purporting to be theistic but opposing a
sound Biblical conception of God present their own dangers, for the
purposes of this brief analysis the most stunning ethical contrast is
provided by none other than secular humanism. According to Tim LaHaye
in “Mind Siege: The Battle For Truth In The New Millennium”, secular
humanism holds to the following principles: God does not exist, man is
all that does exist, and everything we see and experience in the world
today arose through a process of evolution set in motion by the
spontaneous generation of matter devoid of any divine creative impulse
or overseeing guidance (185). As such, man finds himself alone in the
universe, having to rely solely on his own finite intellect for survival
and understanding. This state of existential self-sufficiency extends
to the arena of ethics as well.

As with its theistic counterpart, the nature of humanism's system of
ethics indelibly flows from its object of ultimate adoration. Thomas
Oden in “Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America &
Russia” classifies the ethical motifs of modernity --- to which secular
humanism serves as a backbone --- as autonomous individualism,
narcissistic naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35).
Translating this into English, in the humanist system of ethics, values
are ultimately determined by the individual in response to external
stimuli and internal biochemical reactions without reference to any
transcendent moral standard. As Francis Schaeffer notes in “A Christian
Manifesto”, “From the material, energy, chance concept of final
reality, final reality... must be silent as to values, principles, or
any basis of law. There is no way to ascertain 'the ought' from 'the
is” (48).” While humanist ethics might prove workable but spiritually
unsatisfying in a world of one, problems arise when multiple individuals
are required to engage in a high degree of social interaction.

Despite being based on faulty assumptions in violation of the First
Commandment, many humanistic individuals, regimes, societies, and
cultures do not necessarily set out to journey down the path of
corruption and libertinism. Before his death, renowned entertainer and
signatory to “Humanist Manifesto 2000” Steve Allen served as spokesman
for the Parents' Television Council of the conservative Media Research
Center in that watchdog organization's campaign to cleanup America's
polluted broadcast airwaves. However, John Frame argues in “Apologetics
To The Glory Of God” that the existence of objective morality is a
theistic assumption with the ultimate choice being between God and
nothingness (102). And since Humanism views life as little more than a
random accident, there is little reason to respect it as a treasured and
unique phenomena.

Casual observers might find it perplexing that a system of thought so
focused upon the human organism ends up being so dangerous to and
destructive of human life. Yet such is clearly the case when examined
through the light of history and current events. The most outright
examples of Humanism on the rampage against individual human life are to
found in those regimes and societies that at one time or the other
embraced totalitarian ideologies such as Communism or Fascism.
Of such sociopolitical theories, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in “Leftism:
From De Sade & Marx To Hitler & Marcuse”, says regarding the
viewpoints of those figures regarding the value of the individual human
life, “The individual is subject to the will of the majority...He is a
mere number in the 'democratic process', who can be added or
subtracted...The individual is nothing --- the 'People' everything...The
individual is a mere fragment of the collective masses (426).” In the
system of humanism then, the individual is not the ultimate source of
value per say as is the species taken as a whole. And this is where
much of the trouble comes in at.

As discussed elsewhere in this paper, the human heart is constructed in
such a manner as to require some focus of ultimate loyalty. For the
totalitarian, such centrality of purpose is found in the state or ruling
party. Since these finite political entities do not hold absolute
sovereignty unlike God, these regimes basing their foundations on
nothing but pure egoism cannot countenance a rival voice providing an
alternative vision or critiquing the one preferred by the prevailing
elite. This is because such an elite cannot guarantee the set of
ultimate outcomes it desires and still grant the same degree of
individual determination as God to those over whom they seem to exercise
complete control. And since it must be remembered that the humanist
version of the Golden Rile declares that those who have the gold make
the rules, those overseeing these sociopolitical environments are able
to tinker with the parameters of acceptability within their respective
spheres to justify the elimination of the inconvenient as epitomized
under the rule of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

The threat to life in nations purporting to value democracy and
individual human rights may be more subtle that that found under
totalitarianism, but the seductiveness of such is often spread across a
far wider base. For whereas tyrants possess the power to eliminate
their victims through the gulags and concentration camps shocking to
most Americans, polite humanists discreetly discard those they deem an
inconvenience through the sanitary privacy provided by a clinic while
celebrating the deed as the epitome of self-actualization under the
banner of choice. The hideous reality finds its most prominent
expression in the issue of abortion where the violation of the First
Commandment and the transgression of the Sixth come together in the
amalgamation of a single act. Even though the numbers may be diminished
in the sense that the tyrant slays untold millions and the wayward
parents seeking an abortion instead bear responsibility of snuffing out
one, the process leading to each of these outcomes share considerable
similarity.

Analyzed from a philosophical perspective, abortion is quite often the
result of assuming an ethical authority to which no human ought to be
privy. The decision to abort is often the culmination of the principles
discussed previously as these concepts move downward from the academic
domain of the elites and into the lives of average citizens. The
individual seeking the abortion --- whether they realize it consciously
or not amidst their struggle and trying circumstances --- begins by
assuming that they (not a deity transcendent to the passions of the
moment) are the supreme arbiter of right and wrong.

And if no eternally objective standard exists outside of the
circumstances of the human organism, one of the first things to go is
truth, in this case represented in the form of scientifically accurate
information and propositional axioms conforming to the facts as they
actually exist. For example, in “Pro-life Answers To Pro-Choice
Arguments”, Randy Alcorn confronts some of the common justifications
raised in defense of this homicidal procedure. Perhaps the best
argument illustrating this point is as follows: “The unborn is not a
person with meaningful life. It's only inches in size, and can't even
think; it's less advanced than an animal (Alcorn, 56).”

Objective scientific fact teaches that the fertilized egg constitutes a
genetically distinct individual whose DNA will be no more complete at
the age of twenty than at the moment of conception. And the criteria of
“meaningfulness” used to judge the value of human life ought to send
chills down the spine of every thinking individual. Since the unborn
child is as human as any other soul dwelling upon the earth, what is to
stop this qualification from being invoked as an excuse to sweep aside
others deemed inconvenient such as the chronically ill, the emotionally
depressed, or even those expressing beliefs countering prevailing
cultural norms onto the societal garbage heap. If the ability to think
determines the extent of one's humanity, can pro-choicers be said to
qualify as people by their own standard?

With advances in technology, abortion simply becomes the tip of the
biomedical scalpel. Genetic engineering, with its potential cures and
promises to increase the quality of life for untold millions, might be
even harder for Christians to grapple with. For unlike abortion, on the
surface genetic engineering masquerades as a proposition in compliance
with the noblest aspirations in support of human life. Yet like
handguns and automobiles, these advanced technologies rather take on the
moral intent of those wielding them in any given circumstance. Often
those harboring the hubris of humanism hold to intentions far removed
from the lofty goals of curing disease or ameliorating physical pain.
Instead, those adhering to this particular worldview hope to harness
these procedures to make manifest their version of an improved humanity
removed from any constraints imposed by an external creator, regardless
of the detrimental consequences likely to be wrought upon actual human
lives.

To address this issue, one might be surprised to learn few better
apologetic resources exist for the Christian than certain types of
science fiction since this form of imaginative speculation often allowed
a theme to be taken to its conceptual extremes. At the one end of the
genetic continuum stands the possibility of a master race not unlike the
horror envisioned by Adolf Hitler. This possibility was considered on
the program “Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda” in the form of a genetically
engineered race know as the Nietzscheans who end up enslaving most
other humans and plunging the transgalactic civilization know as the
Systems Commonwealth into an age of lawlessness serving as the backdrop
against which the ongoing saga unfolded .

While most prevalent themes seem to address the domination of humanity
by these wayward laboratory experiments, the possibility exists for the
reverse whereby man will fail to respect the Sixth Commandment
protections of those conceived and modified in this revolutionary
manner, instead looking upon such individuals as property rather than as
fellow persons. Steps may in fact be taken to even alter or limit the
fundamental human characteristics of such beings. One branch of such
research known as transgenics hopes to introduce animal DNA into the
human genome. Thomas Horn noted in a WorthyNews.com article titled
“Transgenics: Creating Real Monsters” that such efforts in spirit
violate the injunctions against bestiality found in Leviticus 18:23 by
undermining the integrity between species with the possibility of
“ultimately producing animal characteristics within humans.” These
ideas have been explored in a number of television programs such as
“Dark Angel” where one of the characters was forced to live life with
the body of a human and a face evoking the features of a lion.

In a sense, one might look upon the study of Bible prophecy as a
discipline where the seemingly unbelievable predictions of science
fiction often take form in the concreteness of history. And while
admitting that one cannot state with absolute certainty how God might
permit the events of eschatology to come about, these horrors may very
well transpire through the aide of a form of genetic engineering that
recognizes no ethical limits and respects only the lives of those
wielding power at the time. The Raelian movement, a religious sect that
worships extraterrestrials as the creators of mankind, hopes to
resurrect the dead by cloning them. Ultimately, this could provide the
means whereby the Anti-Christ could pull off a counterfeit resurrection.

Other passages of prophecy sound like a transgenic nightmare. In
particular, the locusts of Revelation 9 come to mind. These creatures
are described as like unto horses prepared for battle, with the faces of
men, the hair of women, the teeth of lions, and the tails of scorpions.
Such creatures may come from the pit of Hell, but they could very well
find their way from there through the route of some mad scientist's
laboratory. In the vain attempt to reshape humanity in its own image,
transhumanists could scar man's precious visage through such a
narcissistic undertaking that, unless those days be cut short, no flesh
would be saved (Matthew 24:22).

James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the law, and yet offend in
one point, he is guilty of all.” The Ten Commandments begin to unravel
in the lives of those who have not come to repentance in Jesus Christ.
Should an individual or society fail to recognize God's rightful place
as ruler of the universe, such individuals could unwillingly discover
that they might not be around very long to enjoy the universe that God
so lovingly created.

Wednesday, September 09, 2015

In a SermonAudio podcast, the pastoral staff of Berean Baptist Church in
Fayettville, North Carolina mocked those holding to a pretribulational
view of the Rapture.

It was snidely remarked that most American Christians cannot handle the idea of enduring systematic global persecution.

Maybe so.

But unless this church offers survivalist training that includes the use
of firearms and improvised explosive devices, aren't these pastors
suffering profound cognitive dissonance as to what they profess to be
coming?

Even worse, wouldn't they be guilty of an appalling degree of pastoral
negligence in failing to prepare those subjected to their spiritual
teaching?

Criticisms such as those enunciated by the pastoral staff are also
thinly veiled insults that Americans have things too comfortable.

But what about this particular congregation?

For when the armies and operatives of the Anti-Christ besiege the
nation, won't this church's sprawling entertainment center with its
coffee bar and such make a tempting target?

For this church is so rich that, despite going out of its way to inform
the world how much the pastoral staff despises the American flag, there
isn't simply a single flagpole on their property but at least five in
front of the entrance to this sprawling complex in its SermonAudio
profile photo.

Tuesday, September 08, 2015

Ecclesiastical rabblerouser Jim Wallis went on a fast in protest over cuts to social programs in the Congressional budget.

Too bad he didn't starve to death.

That's so harsh, leftists will snap.

It must be pointed out that Wallis pulls these kinds of stunts on his own.

No vile conservatives withheld or denied him access to food.

Interestingly, in light of Wallis' acceptance of abortion and gay unions
hidden behind verbal obfuscations to deceive all but the most
discerning, apparently fasting might be one of the few Biblical
practices that he takes seriously.

However, in his zeal to show how superspiritual he is, it seems Wallis
can't even engage in this practice in an appropriately Biblical manner.

According to Matthew 6:16-18, aren't you supposed to comport yourself in
such a way that no one else other than God is supposed to know that you
are conducting a fast?

Wallis does not seem to so much utilize fasts as a way to draw closer to
God but rather as a way to express his profound hatred of the American
way of life and the free market system.

In his 3/13/11 Sojomail Newsletter, Wallis lamented, “I have been
astounded how food is everywhere in our culture...America is obese
because of the assault of food --- an idolatry made of something that
was meant to both sustain us and bring community in our social
relations.”

In other words, Wallis does not so much want you to make your own free decision to join him in this form of physicalized prayer.

Ideally, what Wallis longs to see is a deprivation imposed from above
upon those in the despised “middling orders” unable to rise to the level
of mystic contemplation preferred by Wallis and his gnostic elites.

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

In a column regarding Dietrich Bonhoeffer, shouldn't Cal Thomas have
been a bit more reserved in his praise of the theologian executed by the
Nazis?

Bonhoeffer should be honored for his stand against tyranny and for
modeling many of the values Christians strive to incorporate into their
own lives such as standing up for what they believe to be right even
when it is not the popular thing to do.

But in terms of belief and doctrine, Bonhoeffer is far from being the
ideal Christian many of our religious leaders uplift him to be.

According to Biblical Discernment Ministries, Bonehoffer undermined the
sinlessness of Jesus, downplayed individual salvation (instead equating
that eternal state with church membership), and suggested that Christ's
Resurrection was not so much an historical event but rather a
mythological one (a fancy way of saying that the event is probably just a
story from which we can draw inspiration but not likely one that
actually transpired).

In the Christian life, one's profession of faith must be backed by more than mere words.

However, since grace is by faith and that not of ourselves, neither can
one rely on one's works if there is not a solid doctrinal foundation
there to back up the eternality of such deeds.

It is when we downplay the objective reality of the Savior that we open
ourselves up to a wide variety of spiritual delusions that not only
endanger ourselves but also threaten those around us.